MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Pretransplant serologic testing to identify the risk of polyoma BK viremia in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

2011· article· en· W1548393238 on OpenAlexaff
Abdalla Mohamed Bakr Ali, Ian W. Gibson, Patricia E. Birk, Tom Blydt‐Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineViremiaSerologyImmunologyKidney transplantKidney transplantationKidneyVirologyInternal medicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Antibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated the age-related prevalence of a prior polyoma BKV infection at the time of transplantation and association with subsequent development of BKV viremia. We measured BKV-specific antibody titers in stored serum samples obtained before transplantation in 94 pediatric kidney transplant recipients (in a single-center, retrospective analysis) and 40 matched donors from 1986 to 2007. Titers were categorized as LOW or HIGH serostatus at titers of ≤ 1:2560 and ≥ 1:10 240, respectively. Of these, 36 recipients transplanted since 2002 were prospectively screened for BKV viremia. Seventeen percent of recipients aged 0-6 yr had HIGH BKV serostatus compared with 73% of older recipients (p < 0.002). The prevalence of HIGH donor BKV serostatus was 73%. Five prospectively screened patients (14%) developed early BKV viremia, and an additional 4 (11%) had late onset of BKV viremia. There were three cases (8%) of BKVAN. LOW BKV serostatus was significantly associated with early BKV viremia (p = 0.02). Donor HIGH to recipient LOW (HIGH/LOW) had the highest risk of BKV viremia (4/7; 57%), compared with LOW/LOW (0/3; 0%) and recipient HIGH (1/26; 4%) (p = 0.004). BKV IgG titers are low in young pediatric kidney transplant recipients, and LOW BKV serostatus is associated with an increased risk of early BKV infection post-transplant, particularly in the context of donor with HIGH BKV serostatus.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.822

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207